The story of bloated dog with a bone, Hairy McLeary look-a-like, Matthew John Blomfield’s defamation case against Cameron Slater is now undoubtedly on the lips every New Zealander, all despite various Judges declaring the story a non event, “not in the public interest”. So just how was it that a serial fraudster managed to get so far, just how is it that this fraudster has been able to fool both a District Court judge and a High Court judge. Just how was it that Justice Raynor Asher became so very convinced that Blomfield had a case against Slater, that Blomfield had been defamed. Theres absolutely no doubt that Asher J had formed this view, one only need read his recent judgement to see that. Facts have been twisted, evidence deliberately misconstrued and a favourable order granted on an application that arguably had not been filed in the required manner, an application that was mysteriously able to evade the High Court rules and due process.
In order to answer this question one needs to go way back to 2012 when Slater first published his articles on Blomfield and the frauds he accused Blomfield of. One also needs to go even further back in time to 2010 and take an even closer look at the actions of both New Zealands Serious Fraud Office, The Ministry of Economic Development, the New Zealand Police and the Official Assignee that had been statutorily charged with handling Blomfield’s bankruptcy and any crimes that may have been detected. One also needs to examine the serious failures of a number of New Zealand’s financial institutions and at least two of New Zealand’s major Banks.
One also needs to take an extremely close look at the state of New Zealand’s legal profession and the body charged with oversight of Kiwi lawyers, the New Zealand Law Society. This year in particular has been particularly bad, an “annus horribilis”, a year wherein it seems that every week there has been a lawyer involved in a financial scandal, raked over the coals for frauds, overcharging, abuse of trust accounts, you name it New Zealand’s legal fraternity is clearly in crisis, in fact as we are publishing this story yet another case of a dodgy kiwi legal Beagle has hit the headlines.
It is not often that one is given the tools with which to analyse such a dilemma, but analyse it we have, and as far as we can see New Zealand’s problem is systemic and it stems from a serious lack of accountability, ethics, good old-fashioned honesty and a government who has been anything but a shining example of how the affairs of state should be conducted openly and with integrity. A dog eat dog legal profession being the result.
So as to illustrate this fact we have decided to look at a number of cases that involved Matthew Blomfield, his legal mates and of course the Slater defamation case to date.
The first the public became aware, via the MSM, that Blomfield was even suing Slater for defamation was when District Court Judge Charles Blackie released his now infamous errant decision on Slater’s pariah status as a “non” journalist back in late 2013, only for Slater to then immediately file an appeal in the High Court.
We here at LF have heavilly criticised Judge Blackie, criticism that was wholly justified even if Justice Asher’s own criticisms were heavily watered down so as to save Blackie being completely humiliated. But at the time we also wondered how it was that Judge Blackie had managed to get it so wrong.
It is clear from Blackie’s decision that he had formed a certain view of Slater, and not a particularly flattering one at that, perhaps his view was there prior to the defamation case, perhaps Blackie did not like Slater but that would still, in our view, not account completely for his decision, especially the tone. Blackie had to have known that Slater would appeal. No matter, whatever Blackie’s personal view of Slater there had to have been more to it than met the eye, there had to have been amongst Blomfield’s copious submissions and pleadings a core that Blackie was comfortable relying on in attempting to cut Slaters throat.
Remember when blackie came to the bench he had not had a career as a lawyer, his background is marine/naval, having formally been a Captain in the New Zealand Armed Services, we won’t delude readers by calling it a Navy as its far too small to warrant such a grand title.
Blackie, as a result, has always relied heavily on lawyers to aid him with his judgements, to stand in front of him with a few legal navigational flags, steering him in the right direction.
This then led team LF to focus on Blomfield’s court filings. Just what was it amongst those filings that had been responsible for feeding Blackie DCJ’s obvious disdain for Slater and red-flagging the direction to head in? For the purposes of this exercise, in trying to keep it simple, we are going to focus on just one of the documents we managed to find, the tone of which, we believe is indicative of the sort of material that likely played a large part in forming the views of both Charles Blackie and Raynor Asher.
These documents are in a class of their own, they are all documents purportedly provided to Blomfield by lawyers who had over the years had business dealings with him, some in fact having represented Blomfield in his many and varied business incarnations.
The document we intend focusing on is, as we say, indicative in both its nature and apparent reliability, of the various other material provided by Blomfield that both Blackie and Asher had little option but to rely on, but in doing so they were not relying on Blomfield so much as they were the evidence and opinions of his past “legal” advisors. Advisors that were all lawyers and clearly in the minds of the two judges, if no one else, people who’s word upon which they could and did rely.
In doing so they also, we believe, failed to take into account the degree to which the applicant, Matthew Blomfield, had little if any fear whatsoever of the consequence’s of misleading the Courts. That particular failure or weakness is one that the courts may yet, in hindsight, come to regret.
The document which we are about to take apart and analyse was not only responsible for seriously misleading two judges but it was in fact one of the keys to understanding Blomfield’s disability, a mental illness, one which effected Blomfields judgement. No normal person would have been prepared to risk engaging in such deceptive criminal behaviour, especially given the serious consequences if caught. But over the years Blomfield has repeatedly been able to get away with virtually identical behaviour and in our view has developed a schema wherein he truly now believes that he is untouchable.
The document is a memo to Judge Blackie dated 25th September 2012 wherein Blomfield sets out details of the witnesses he intends calling to give viva voce testimony, a brief of evidence for each and every one, a “will say” schedule. The document we are now about to focus on was amongst those “will say’s” and is entitled “MEMORANDUM OF MATTHEW BLOMFIELD IN RELATION TO THE “WILL SAY” OF MR MIKE ALEXANDER.
True to form Blomfield starts out with an introductory offer for judge Blackie, a literary flourish if you will, one which he clearly hopes that Blackie will be drawn to; remember Blomfield’s background is marketing, like every other coke snorting advertising guru, he knows only to well how to bullshit even the most astute of minds:
MEMORANDUM TO CALL CONFERENCE FOR DIRECTIONS AND APPLY FOR URGENCY
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
- Attached is a“Will Say” that was prepared and sent to Mr Mike Alexander for comment and verification.
- The document was prepared using conversations I have had with Mr Alexander on this matter.
- Mr Alexander’s business partner Mr John Heimsath has responded with the following. As you can see they are reluctant to get involved.“Mike would prefer not to be giving evidence at all – as you know despite the awful defamation against you and Mike (and others) our overall analysis of the matter is that the people behind Cameron Slater’s strange ill informed smear campaign may well be previous clients and our view is that those individuals are for whatever reason intent on continuing the fight with you on any front that they happen to choose next. They do not appear to be making reasoned decisions about the validity of what they are saying. In our view, they are the sort of people that will not stop attacking unless you (we) stop fighting back. Accordingly we refuse to fight back and likewise do not want to be seen as being a fellow combatant in your defamation case (however justified the case).Mike would (for that reason) prefer not to be giving evidence. However, as mentioned he will have to if you subpoena him to do so”.
- I attach Mr Alexander’s “Will Say” as it was sent to him and without alteration or correction. I have been told that By Mr Heimsath that “Your Will Say statement then his evidence is likely to be broadly in accordance with what you have written”. It is attached on a without prejudice basis for the purpose of this Judicial Settlement Conference.
Dated 25th day of September 2012
Judge Blackie, reading Blomfield’s memo, must have been truly impressed, with empathy visibly dripping from his brow. Notably Blackie could not have ignored the impassioned treatise of fellow legal professional, lawyer John Hiemsath of Hiemsath Alexander. Heimsath does a fantastic job of painting Cameron Slater and his “sources” as nut-jobs hell-bent on destruction. His use of the term “smear campaign” is just brilliant, in fact spot on, providing it was written with one eye on a mirror. Heimsath also eludes to a perceived conflict of interest that could well be problematic for his legal firm, with “Previous Clients” possibly being involved.
In fact if it was not the case one could be forgiven for thinking that these comments had been written with a specific purpose in mind, but of course we would be labelled conspiracy theorists for even suggesting such a thing. Interestingly however whilst Blomfield feels comfortable quoting one of his lawyers, he does not seem to have seen fit to pop that important piece of correspondence in as an exhibit. So were Heimsath’s eloquent comments, complete with punctuation, made during a telephone conversation perhaps? If so Mr Blomfield certainly has the extraordinary gift of total recall.
Blomfield’s memo to Judge Blackie also had the following attachment, the evidence in brief of Hiemsath’s partner, fellow lawyer Mike Alexander; Alexander being the man Blomfield intended calling to give evidence in support of his claim that Cameron Slater had viciously defamed him:
“WILL SAY” STATEMENT OF MIKE ALEXANDER I, MIKE ALEXANDER, say:
- I am a lawyer based in Auckland.
- I have known Matthew Blomfield for 10 years. I have provided him with legal advice over those years.
- I have read the Story “Operation Kite” that was published on the Whale Oil website on 4 May 2012.
- The story says “Matt Blomfield in tandem with advice from his faithful lawyers, and a number of emails to Waitakere City Council conspired to steal a cheque from a PO Box, using some private investigators. This statement is untrue. Mr Blomfield was a director and shareholder of the company refered to in the story. He had colour of right to the cheque that was obtained. Mr Blomfield and I have never conspired to steal anything.
- This was part of a larger dispute that was going on between two shareholders, Mr Claydon and Mr Blomfield. Heimsath Alexander has acted in a long running dispute. See attached letter that provides context.
- The story says “Matt, on the advice of his lawyer then tried to launder the money but was caught by a vigilant bank.” This statement is untrue, Mr Blomfield endorsed the cheque into his personal account. I advised Mr Blomfield on what is required to endorse a cheque. Mr Blomfield’s error was to endorse a cheque that was marked “non transferable”. The bank later reversed the cheque. My understanding the cheque was then sent to the company. Neither myself or Mr Blomfield to the best of my knowledge have been involved in “money laundering” of any kind.
- The story is tagged with the words “Tagged: Corruption • fraud • Hell Pizza • Infrastructure NZ Ltd • Matt Blomfield • Mike Alexander • Paul Claydon • Theft. There was no corruption, no fraud and no theft.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
The all important material in the “WILL SAY” STATEMENT Blomfield asserts he will be leading lawyer Mike Alexander in evidence on is to be found at paragraph six (6.):
“The story says “Matt, on the advice of his lawyer then tried to launder the money but was caught by a vigilant bank.” This statement is untrue, Mr Blomfield endorsed the cheque into his personal account. I advised Mr Blomfield on what is required to endorse a cheque. Mr Blomfield’s error was to endorse a cheque that was marked “non transferable”. The bank later reversed the cheque. My understanding the cheque was then sent to the company. Neither myself or Mr Blomfield to the best of my knowledge have been involved in “money laundering” of any kind.“
Of course this evidence relates to a story that Cameron Slater posted on 4th May 2012, with Blomfield now alleging that the story was wholly false and thus defamatory. What seems to have upset Blomfield, Alexander and Heimsath is that Slater somehow got it all wrong and that Blomfield was innocent of the allegations. Slater of course did not get his story wrong, the allegation is wholly correct bar a few chronological incidentals, sure you might even get away with splitting hairs over which criminal charge to lay, but beyond that the offending Slater alleged was most certainly committed and falls within what any reasonable lay person would more commonly term “money laundering”.
Note: Slaters url link was taken down with his post in late 2012, but it is still available here: Operation Kite Email 23 December 2008
Lauda Finem have reported on what was called “Operation Kite” by Blomfield and the corrupt private investigator, Daniel Toresen, he employed to aid in the theft of a circa $100’000.00 cheque from an Auckland post office box. Those stories can be found in the url’s below;
Even the name “Operation Kite” can only infer that they all knew exactly what it was they were doing, what their objective was (but did not for one minute expect that evidence to fall into the wrong hands). Certain types of cheque fraud are commonly called kiting and it is most certainly fraud, albeit it with a few twists and turns that are of course unique to every case.
Unfortunately the victim in this case did not have access to the evidence we here at LF now hold. But certainly the Banks that were affected had everything they needed to lay a complaint with police. Had they in fact done so then Blomfield would have been stopped much sooner than he was, but the banks and Blomfield obviously decided to hide behind the privacy laws. After all it was the banks who had cocked-up by allowing a ‘not negotiable’ cheque for such an extraordinary large amount to be banked into an account other than that the payor had intended.
Blomfield’s statement of claim around this particular story reads:
8. That on the 4th of May 2012 the defendant wrote and published a story on the website http://www.whaleoil.co.nz entitled “Operation Kite” A copy of the story is annexed Schedule 3 and is available to anyone with internet access.
a) Statement 1: “To summarise, Matt Blomfield in tandem with advice from his faithful lawyers, and a number of emails to Waitakere City Council conspired to steal a cheque from a PO Box, using some private investigators..”
I. The plaintiff engaged in a conspiracy with private investigators to steal someone else’s property.
II. The plaintiff used the services of dishonest lawyers and attempted to mislead the Waitakere City Council in order to steal a cheque that did not belong to him.
III. The plaintiff is a thief.
b) Statement 2: “Matt, on the advice of his lawyer then tried to launder the money but was caught by a vigilant bank..”
I. The plaintiff was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to legitimise monies obtained dishonestly.
II. The plaintiff is a person who engages in criminal activity.
III. Without the vigilance of a bank, the plaintiff would have succeeded in appropriating illicit funds for his own benefit.
VI. The plaintiff is a thief.
Now this is where Blomfield’s claim that Mike Alexander would be led in evidence confirming, on oath, that it was his “understanding the cheque was then sent to the company. Neither myself or Mr Blomfield to the best of my knowledge have been involved in “money laundering” of any kind” gets very interesting.
Of course this statement is a complete and utter lie, as are the following statements by Blomfield in his memo to District Court judge Charles Blackie and the statements made by John Heimsath, quotes which Blomfield uses to great effect:
1. ” I attach Mr Alexander’s “Will Say” as it was sent to him and without alteration or correction.“
2. ” Mr Alexander’s business partner Mr John Heimsath has responded with the following. As you can see they are reluctant to get involved.”
“Mike would prefer not to be giving evidence at all – as you know despite the awful defamation against you and Mike (and others) our overall analysis of the matter is that the people behind Cameron Slater’s strange ill informed smear campaign may well be previous clients and our view is that those individuals are for whatever reason intent on continuing the fight with you on any front that they happen to choose next. They do not appear to be making reasoned decisions about the validity of what they are saying. In our view, they are the sort of people that will not stop attacking unless you (we) stop fighting back. Accordingly we refuse to fight back and likewise do not want to be seen as being a fellow combatant in your defamation case (however justified the case).
Mike would (for that reason) prefer not to be giving evidence. However, as mentioned he will have to if you subpoena him to do so”.
But, and there is a large “but”, Blackie never got to see what Blomfield had relied on when recounting Heimsath’s prejudicial comments. If he had Blackie may have been given to arrive at a very different set of conclusions to those expressed in his 2013 judgement.
In fact, until now, no one other than Blomfield, Heimsath and Alexander have had the benefit if sighting the source for the comments Blomfield attributes to Heimsath, as aforesaid Blomfield fails to attribute the comments to a specific source, employing instead a very loose “Mr Alexander’s business partner Mr John Heimsath has responded with the following”.
Dare we say it, but in now revealing the source of Heimsath’s prejudicial commentary, Judge’s Charles Blackie, Raynor Asher and any other judge who happens along may now be given to view Blomfield’s various court filings with a little more suspicion. The source can in fact be attributed to an email John Heimsath sent Blomfield (also in September 2012). That email, in it’s entirety, portrays a very different picture, in fact it portrays something quite different to that which Blomfield was successful in having the courts believe. Heimsath opines;
Sorry for being slow in getting back to you. For fear of repeating our position, our position is:
1. Mike would prefer not to be giving evidence at all – as you know despite the awful defamation against you and Mike (and others) our overall analysis of the matter is that the people behind Cameron Slater’s strange ill informed smear campaign may well be previous clients and our view is that those individuals are for whatever reason intent on continuing the fight with you on any front that they happen to choose next. They do not appear to be making reasoned decisions about the validity of what they are saying. In our view, they are the sort of people that will not stop attacking unless you (we) stop fighting back. Accordingly we refuse to fight back and likewise do not want to be seen as being a fellow combatant in your defamation case (however justified the case).
2. Mike would (for that reason) prefer not to be giving evidence. However, as mentioned he will have to if you subpoena him to do so.
3. If Mike is subpoenaed to give evidence and you lead evidence from him in relation to the matters set out in your Will Say statement then his evidence is likely to be broadly in accordance with what you have written. However, as discussed there is one area where Mike will have to explain (if relevant to the evidence led or on cross examination) that it was originally understood that your intention was to direct the money from the endorsed cheque to an account to hold it for the company in which you held an interest (Infrastructure).
Infrastructure was (we understood) having its cash resources denuded by the other shareholder by what was considered to be unlawful means and not for the benefit of the company. In the end you did in fact use the money from the cheque you endorsed for your own purposes rather than for the purposes of the company.
Good luck at the Judicial Settlement Conference
JOHN HEIMSATH PARTNER
Shit hang on a minute, the incredible Mr Blomfield has left out an entire paragraph of Mr Heimsath’s exceptionally informative email on the subject of the “will say” memorandum and the all important stolen cheque, he also appears to have done a spot of the old “cut & paste”, thus creating whole new sentence structures, and with them the much needed prejudicial implications – Why exactly would that be?
It would seem that the missing paragraph “3” in Blomfield’s memorandum to Blackie flies completely in the face of what Heimsath has said in paragraphs “1” and “2”, of his email, the paragraphs Blomfield saw a distinct advantage in using.
Come to think of it, why even bother numbering each and every paragraph in such a short document, an email no less?
Perhaps it’s because in a later telephone conversation either Heimsath or Alexander had with Blomfield it was made clear that only paragraphs 1 and 2 should be used, as they had been written specifically for the courts consumption?
So there are a number of problems here for Blomfield, Heimsath and Alexander. The first is that all three clearly knew that Blomfield had stolen the cheque, and that he had then later converted that financial “instrument” by intentionally banking it into his personal bank account, then spending the stolen funds on himself. This is of course often called fraud, or for arguments sake money laundering. Blomfield’s actions in themselves would also fall under whats often, in legal circles known as “theft by a person in a special relationship“.
Now it is LF’s view that Heimsath and Alexander, at the time this email was sent, had likely earlier received a very different version of the so-called “Will Say” document, a version which Blomfield had hoped he would be able to file with the court. Alexander however obviously did not feel the same way, or for that matter feel very comfortable with Blomfield’s lies, and so clearly wanted to let Blomfield know that he was not willing to commit perjury to the extent that Blomfield was asking of him, so Alexander then, distancing himself from the old Blomfield “majick” had Heimsath write the above email instead.
It is also LF’s view that Heimsath’s email appears to contain a number of coded threats, the first is cleverly concealed in Heimsath’s noting of the involvement of “Previous Clients”. Of course in this case the client Heimsath is referring to was undoubtedly Hell Pizza’s Warren Powell. LF was supplied the email below by an anonymous source other than Powell
It appears that Heimsath and Alexander were a little bit sensitive in the area of Warren Powell, we suspect that both have always been heavily exposed to a law suit from Powell resultant from an obvious preferential treatment (more than clear in various documents) of Blomfield’s needs to the detriment of Powells legal rights.
The second threat however is far more blatant. Heimsath is clearly letting Blomfield know that if he wants to involve them that they will then be forced to drop Blomfield in the shit, tell it as it really is, but that in doing so they intend doing it in such a way as it will not inveigle them in the criminal offending, leaving Blomfield alone to face the music.
The truth is however that other evidence available to LF clearly points to Toresen, Alexander and Blomfield all being well and truly knowledgeable of, and active participants in, the conspiracy to steal the cheque and then convert or “launder” it through Blomfield’s personal bank account. Toresen’s involvement and knowledge is certainly further supported by the inference that can be drawn from much more recent behaviour.
Team LF have never been contacted by Blomfield’s corrupt PI Daniel Toresen, this despite his being well aware of the allegations we have levelled at him and the dodgy cops he is very well-connected too. Instead, the bent private investigator has obviously decided that he is much better off keeping a low profile and discreetly soliciting google, falsely alleging copyright infringement, in an effort to have LF’s damning stories removed from the google search engine that New Zealander’s rely on.
Team LF knew that this would be a likely strategy as Daniel Toresen has used it in the past when he has needed to remove any negative publicity on the web, stories and evidence that he has been unable to refute or requiring a court battle he knows he is certain to lose:
The reports that Toresen does not want the public seeing are damning and clearly evidence prima facie of Toresen’s criminal offending and the conspiracy that existed between himself, Blomfield and Alexander (see url’s above).
The second area of concern for all four conspirators, Blomfield, Toresen, Alexander and, probably after the fact, Heimsath, will be when the Courts are notified of their conspiratorial criminal behaviour. This is likely to seriously affect both Alexander and Heimsath the most as they had by all accounts certainly seen and agreed to the “will say” memorandum, and yet despite knowing Blomfield’s extraordinary claims to have been wholly false did absolutely nothing to prevent the Courts being mislead, in fact they seem to have fostered the notion that Blomfield could say what ever he wanted but that they would only take part to the extent agreed.
That limited extent however is still enough to hang the pair. Heimsath in the concealed email the courts never got to see is clear in his knowledge of the events, as he in his own words accuses Blomfield, “In the end you did in fact use the money from the cheque you endorsed for your own purposes rather than for the purposes of the company.
So why then was it that Heimsath and Alexander, knowing that Blomfield was undoubtedly guilty of fraud, were prepared to lie and or turn a blind eye, in apparently agreeing to have Alexander state on oath “My understanding the cheque was then sent to the company. Neither myself or Mr Blomfield to the best of my knowledge have been involved in “money laundering” of any kind.”
Both men knew that this claim was completely false and moreover that it would undoubtedly contribute greatly to a miscarriage of justice, which it briefly has on two occasions, with Slater having to appeal judge Blackie’s decision and now for a second time having to apeal the decision of Justice Asher, yet another decision that was arguably based on conclusions that in large part relied on Blomfield’s outrageous perjury.
It is LF’s view that everyone involved in the theft of the cheque, the subsequent lies and misinformation are guilty of a number of serious crimes. One thing is however quite certain, Cameron Slater’s allegation that Blomfield was a criminal and guilty of money laundering was one hundred percent on the money. It’s irrelevant whether Blomfield has yet to be convicted of the offending as the available evidence is indisputable.
It is further our opinion that Blomfield should be charged with the offending under either sections 220, 243 or 246 of the New Zealand Crime Act 1961 (section 220 being our own preference). Team LF’ is also of the opinion that this form of criminal offending has been committed on many other occasions by Matthew John Blomfield, that the offending has undoubtedly been systemic, to the extent that it could almost be seen as a “business model” and that he should be held to account for all of it without further delay.
From LF’s perspective we will be continuing to aid the victims of Blomfield’s criminal behaviour, doing so by combing through the available evidence and slowly building (ready for prosecution) evidence based cases against him. It is also our view that if the police, Official Assignee or SFO, whichever authority we decide should be handed the evidence, do not move to prosecute then they will have been derelict in their statutory duty and or worse, that there is something seriously corrupt going on.